" II I III J I11 11 !■' 



THE 

■nnJku 







R 



GIBSON 






GISH PUBLISHING FUND. 



§ i. Name. — The name of this fund shall be the 
Gish Publishing Fund. 

§ 2. Fund.— This fund shall consist of the estate of 
James R. and Barbara Gish, estimated value, $50,000; 
with any other funds that may hereafter be added to 
it. 

§ 3. Purpose— The purpose of this fund shall be to 
supply the ministers of the German Baptist Brethren 
Church with such books and other printed matter as 
may be helpful to them in advancing and maintain- 
ing the Truth. 

§ 4. Supervision. — The General Missionary and 
Tract Committee shall appoint a committee of three, 
so arranged in term of office that the time of one 
member expires each year, whose duty it shall be 

(a) To examine and pass upon publications issued 
and distributed by this fund. 

(d) To arrange with the Publication Department 
for publication and distribution of publications se- 
lected. 

§ 5. Surplus. — Any surplus on hand at the end of 
the fiscal year of the General Missionary and Tract 
Committee shall, after proper allowance has been 
made for selected books not yet published, be turned 
over to the fund for superannuated and disabled min- 
isters and missionaries: but should it not be needed 
in said fund, then it shall be given to the World-wide 
Mission Fund. 

§6. Terms.— The publications shall be distributed 
free or at greatly reduced rates, at no time the price 
asked being more than the cost of publication, includ- 
ing the expense for delivery. 

§7. Report. — The General Missionary and Tract 
Committee shall cause to be published an annual re- 
port of the fund, including the list of books published 
and the number of copies distributed each year. 




Class. 
Book 



L-.S 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



THE 



LORD'S SUPPER 



BY 

/ 

Elder D. B. Gibson 



Elgin, III.: 

BRETHREN PUBLISHING HOUSE, 

1903. 



THt LIBRARY ©F 

CONGRESS, 

Two Copies Received 

FEB 26 1903 

CLASS OL*XXc. No. 
J COPY .B, 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1902, by 

BRETHREN PUBLISHING HOUSE, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C 



All Rights Reserved. 



OOiTTEiTTS- 



Introduction, . . . 5 

CHAPTER I. 
Introductory, 7 

CHAPTER II. 
Meaning of the Term " Lord's Supper," 11 

CHAPTER III. 
Name of Cup and Loaf, 28 

CHAPTER IV. 

General Teaching of the Eleventh Chapter of 
First Corinthians, . .33 

CHAPTER V. 

The Meal Under Consideration was not the 
Jewish Passover, 39 

CHAPTER VI. 
The Apostles Observed a Feast, 58 

CHAPTER VII. 
Perpetuation of the Supper, . . .68 



INTRODUCTION. 



On Mount Zion, in Jerusalem, there is a 
very ancient building, in which the traveler 
is shown a large upper room. Tradition points 
to this room as the place where the Lord's 
supper was instituted by Jesus on the even- 
ing of his betrayal. The original building 
that stood in the time of Christ was doubt- 
less destroyed, and the present one, contain- 
ing the large upper room referred to, may 
have been erected on the same site. The sur- 
roundings fit most admirably the New Tes- 
tament narrative given of the room, the sup- 
per, and what followed. 

To this upper room came Jesus and his 
chosen apostles. It was on Thursday even- 
ing, the day before the Jewish passover. A 
supper had been arranged, and around the 
table, containing the prepared supper, Jesus 
and his twelve took their places. This was 
the beginning of the first love feast ever held. 
The Master arose from the supper, laid aside 
his garments, girded himself with a towel, 
poured water into a basin, and washed his 
disciples' feet. Thus he instituted the rite of 
feet-washing, and told his disciples that they 



6 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

should do to one another as he had done to 
them. 

Then followed the supper, known as the 
Lord's supper. After that we have the break- 
ing of the bread and the passing of the cup 
of the communion. Three ordinances were 
instituted on the same evening — feet-washing, 
the Lord's supper, and the communion. In 
this little volume Eld. D. B. Gibson, the au- 
thor, takes up the Lord's supper and discusses 
the question forcibly and clearly. His pur- 
pose is to show that the Lord's supper is an 
evening meal, to be eaten by the followers of 
Christ, in connection with feet-washing and 
the communion, and that it is the duty of the 
church to see that the supper is perpetuated. 
We commend this interesting treatise to those 
seeking information on the subject, believing 
that it will be the means of strengthening the 
faith of many and convincing others that the 
bread and cup do not constitute the Lord's 
supper, but that the supper is a meal that 
should precede the communion. 

J. H. Moore. 



THE LORD'S SUPPER. 



CHAPTER ONE. 



Introductory. 



Every ordinance of the church of our Sav- 
ior, Jesus Christ, must have for authority for 
its establishment or foundation the precept or 
example of the Son of God, who is the head 
of all things pertaining to the church, and 
the one to whom man must look in all mat- 
ters affecting spiritual law and authority. 
" Neither is there salvation in any other : for 
there is none other name under heaven given 
among men, whereby we must be saved." 
Acts 4: 12. "The head of every man is 
Christ/' I Cor. 11: 3. Again, Paul is very 
clear and emphatic when he says, " And he 
is before all things and by him all things con- 
sist. And he is the head of the body, the 
church, who is the beginning, the firstborn 
from the dead, that in all things he might 



8 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

have pre-eminence; for it pleased the Father 
that in him should all fullness dwell.'' Col. 
i : 17-19. Jesus says of himself, " All pow- 
er (authority) is given unto me in heaven and 
in earth." Matt. 28: 18. Notice, Jesus says 
" all authority." This clearly establishes the 
fact that no man or set of men, in any ca- 
pacity whatsoever, has the authority to add 
to or diminish the ordinances, rites or cere- 
monies pertaining to the New Testament 
church, to suit the whim or convenience or 
to gratify man's ambition or love of novelty 
or power. " I testify unto every man that 
heareth the words of the prophecy of this 
book, If any man shall add unto them, God 
shall add unto him the plagues which are writ- 
ten in this book: and if any man shall take 
away from the words of the book of this 
prophecy, God shall take away his part from 
the tree of life and out of the holy city." 
Rev. 22 : 18, 19. 

There is an Ordinance in the Nezv Testament 
Church Called the Lord's Supper. 

1. The universal Christian church acknowl- 
edges that there is such an institution and in 



INTRODUCTORY. 9 

some way professes to observe it. (The sole 
exception to this rule is the fraternity of 
Quakers who spiritualize everything pertain- 
ing to public worship.) 

2. Paul said : " When ye come together into 
one place, this is not to eat the Lord's sup- 
per ; for in eating every one taketh before other 
his own supper, and one is hungry," etc. I 
Cor. n: 20, 21. Paul here recognizes an in- 
stitution called " Lord's supper." He did not 
coin the term nor make use of words of doubt- 
ful signification. He was too scholarly to be 
mistaken: had no disposition to mislead. 
Hence we have the following: 

1. Paul used the term Lord's supper. 

2. The Corinthians were partaking of a meal 
they called the Lord's supper. 

3. The entire Christian world concedes that 
there is a Lord's supper. Again, whatever 
the words " Lord's supper " may have meant 
then, they mean the same now. 

Let us look back to the foundation upon 
which rests the apostolic knowledge of the 
fact that Christ instituted a supper. He ate 
with them in the upper chamber in Jerusalem : 



10 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

" When the even was come he sat down with 
the twelve, and as they did eat he said, Ver- 
ily I say unto you, one of you shall betray 
me." Matt. 26: 20, 21. " In the evening he 
came with the twelve, and as they sat and 
did eat Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, 
One of you which eateth with me shall be- 
tray me." Mark 14: 17, 18. "And supper 
being ended, the devil having now put into 
the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray him, he 
riseth from supper and laid aside his gar- 
ments and took a towel and girded himself, 
and began to wash his disciples' feet." John 
13: 4, 5. These Scriptures establish beyond 
doubt that Jesus ate a supper with his dis- 
ciples. This meal was undoubtedly the Lord's 
supper mentioned by Paul. And if there was 
no other proof we would have the Christly 
example as a guide to the divine mind on the 
subject under consideration. 



CHAPTER TWO. 



Meaning of the Term " Lord's Supper/ 



Having ascertained that there is a Lord's 
supper which Jesus ate with his disciples, the 
next step will be to ascertain the meaning of 
" supper/' as used in the New Testament. If 
a Lord's supper is a supper of which the Lord 
is the author and, secondly, a supper dedicated 
to the Lord (i Cor. n: 20, 21), what then 
is the usual and natural meaning of the word ? 
Is a small bit of bread and a small sip of 
wine a supper? Literally, no. And remem- 
ber that the Lord's supper is literal. How 
shall we best interpret the Scriptures? By 
taking them in their most obvious meaning. 
Baptism is immersion in water, not sprink- 
ling a few drops of water on the subject. If 
baptism means immersion, supper means a 
full evening meal or repast. Webster calls it 
"the evening meal;" German— Abendmahl, 
and is derived from the Greek deipnon. 

" In New Testament supper — the prin- 



12 THE LORDS SUPPER. 

cipal meal of the Hebrews and taken by them 
in the evening — a feast — a banquet " (Green- 
field's Lexicon, p. 47). "Supper — afternoon 
or evening meal — a feast — an entertainment/ ' 
(Donegan's Lexicon, 345). 

Thus we see there is a Lord's supper — that 
Jesus ate a supper with his disciples — and that 
supper means a full meal, a plenteous repast. 
What, then, is the inevitable and logical con- 
clusion but that the Lord's supper spoken of 
by Paul (1 Cor. 11 : 20, 21) was a full even- 
ing meal? 

But strangely enough the Christian world 
has largely dropped the full meal — " plente- 
ous repast " — and is using the cup and loaf 
of communion for the Lord's supper. This 
we regard as erroneous and misleading; er- 
roneous because the cup and the loaf are not 
the Lord's supper; and misleading because 
they represent a different ordinance — different 
in name, different in purpose. That they are 
not the Lord's supper is shown from the fact 
that they were given after the supper and 
could not therefore be the supper. 

In proof of the above let me appeal to Holy 



MEANING OF THE TERM. I3 

Writ, the sure word of testimony : " And as 
they were eating Jesus took bread and blessed 
it and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and 
said, Take, eat ; this is my body. And he took 
the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, 
saying, Drink ye all of it." Matt. 26: 26, 27. 

" And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and 
blessed and brake it, and gave to them and 
said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he 
took the cup, and when he had given thanks 
he gave it to them, and they all drank of it." 
Mark 14: 22, 23. 

" And he took bread and gave thanks and 
brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This 
is my body which is given for you; do this 
in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup 
after supper, saying, This cup is the new tes- 
tament in my blood, which is shed for you." 
Luke 22: 19, 20. 

" In like manner also the cup after sup- 
per, saying, This is the new covenant in my 
blood: this do as often as ye drink it in re- 
membrance of me." 1 Cor. 11 : 25, Rev. Ver. 

Therefore the cup and the loaf cannot with 
propriety be called " supper," because not a 



14 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

supper. I offer as additional evidence on this 
phase of the subject the following authorities: 

" The word deipnon in the New Testament 
signifies a supper, which with the Hebrews 
was the principal meal of the day. It also 
signified feast, banquet. Luke 14: 12, et alibi 
.... Hence if we adhere strictly to the 
primitive meaning and general usage of the 
word, we shall arrive' at this conclusion, viz, 
that the Lord's supper is a sumptuous repast, 
a full meal, a feast, a banquet." — Hibbard on 
Baptism, Part 2, p. 94, Sec. 9. 

Hear J. V. Updyke, one of the greatest 
•evangelists of the Christian, (Campbellite) 
church. Speaking of the cup and the loaf he 
says : " It is sometimes called the Lord's sup- 
per, because it was instituted in the evening, 
but when we come to the Bible terms it is 
nowhere called the Lord's supper. Luke 22: 
19, 20: 'And he took bread and gave thanks 
and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, 
This is my body which is given for you ; this 
do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the 
cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new 
testament in mv blood which is shed for 



MEANING OF THE TERM. IS 

you/ From this we learn that it was after 
supper that Christ instituted this ordinance." 

Christ did not eat two suppers before rising 
from the table. The word " deipnon" trans- 
lated " supper," signified a full meal. — " Up- 
dyke's Sermons and Songs/' pages 135, 136. 
In the preface of the work above quoted, A. 
Wilcox says of Updyke, " He has a good 
memory, is witty, eloquent, earnest, logical and 
a good debater." 

Of the many authorities of like character 
that might be given we select one more. This 
has been frequently referred to by writers oil 
the subject, but it is so clear and convincing 
withal that we do not feel justified in omit- 
ting it in a work of this nature. We refer to 
the argument drawn from Dr. Seiss. 

" We have another argument to present : an 
argument from analogy. We are about to 
submit to a mode of reasoning which has no 
need of demonstration ; which exempts us en- 
tirely from the necessity of replying at all to 
the teachings of the immersionists as to the 
scholastical and common meaning of the word 
in dispute. We may grant that the Greeks 



l6 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

ordinarily used bapiizo to signify immersion 
and that all its meanings are properly resolv- 
able into this. We may entirely dispense with 
and wholly set aside the conclusions which 
we have thus far adduced; and yet there is 
a mode of reasoning to which no just ex- 
ception can possibly be taken, which entirely 
confounds the Baptist claim and establishes 
the bulwark of strength around our mode of 
baptism, which renders it forever invulner- 
able against all the immersionists' logic in the 
world. 

" It is agreed on all hands that under the 
present dispensation, Christ has established 
two corresponding ordinances or sacraments; 
the one is baptism, the other the Lord's sup- 
per. The one refers to the new birth, the 
other to the nurture and nourishment of this 
new creature. All the essentials of a positive 
ordinance or Christian sacrament pertain alike 
to both. Both have Christ's positive com- 
mand; both require the use of an external, 
material, and tangible element; both are of 
binding and continual obligation; both have 
the divine promise of grace to those who at- 



MEANING OF THE TERM. 17 

tend properly upon them ; both are intended to 
exhibit and apply the Gospel to the souls of 
men; both are equally solemn, sacred and un- 
alterable. The one is denoted by the word 
deipnon, supper; the other by the word bap- 
tisma, baptism. Baptisma does not more de- 
scribe the nature or essential constituents of the 
one than deipnon does of the other. It is no 
more allowable, then, for us to depart from the 
strict meaning of the word deipnon in our cel- 
ebration of the holy supper, than to depart 
from the strict meaning of baptisma in bap- 
tizing. The stringency or laxity that is al- 
lowable must be the same in both cases, for 
they are exactly analogous. If it is not nec- 
essary to keep to the literal meaning of one, 
it is not necesary to keep to the literal mean- 
ing of the other. Liberty in the one case 
presupposes and implies the existence of the 
same right to exercise the same liberty in the 
other case. This cannot be successfully dis- 
puted. 

" Suppose, then, that the immersionists are 
right in their claiming that the mode is im- 
plied in baptisma, if they can also show that 



l8 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

they, in common with the church generally, 
from the beginning until now, consider them- 
selves under no obligations to keep to the 
plain, literal import of the word deipnon in 
the holy supper, that fact alone, without any 
other argument, is a satisfactory and unan- 
swerable ground upon which to claim ex- 
emption from the rigid adherence to the lit- 
eral meaning of baptisma in baptizing. Sound 
authority in one case is sound authority in 
every parallel case. 

" What, then, is the meaning of deipnon ? 
There is little room for diversity as to the 
true answer. It denotes a full meal, and that 
an evening meal. All authorities agree that it 
stands for the principal meal of the Greeks 
and Romans. Three names of meals occur 
in the Homeric writings in the following or- 
der: ariston, deipnon, and doepon. The 
Greeks of a later age partook of three meals, 
called akratisma, ariston, and deipnon. The 
last, which corresponds to the doepon of the 
Homeric poems, was the evening meal or din- 
ner; the ariston was the lunch; and the akra- 
tisma was eaten immediately after rising in 



MEANING OF THE TERM. 19 

the morning. Next followed the ariston, or 
lunch; but the time at which it was taken 
is uncertain; Snidas says it was taken about 
the third hour; that is, about nine o'clock 
in the morning; but this account does not 
agree with the statements of other ancient 
writers. We may conclude, from many cir- 
cumstances, that this meal was eaten about 
the middle of the day, and answered to the 
Roman prandium. The principal meal, how- 
ever, was the deipnon. It was usually eaten 
rather late in the day; frequently not before 
sunset." — Smith's Antiquities, pages 303, 304. 

Dr. Halley says : " Long before the apos- 
tolic age, deipnon had become regularly and 
constantly the evening meal. Nitzch says that 
it denoted the principal meal. French does 
the same. Hence all great entertainments 
were called deipna, and always came off in 
the latter part of the day or at night. The 
use of the word in the New Testament cor- 
responds exactly with these representations, as 
may be seen from the following passages : 

"Matt. 23 : 5, 6, 'They make broad their phy- 
lacteries, and enlarge the borders of their gar- 



20 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

ments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts ' 
(deipnons). 

"Luke 14: 12, 'When thou makest a din- 
ner (ariston) or a supper (deipnon), call not 
thy friends.' 

" Luke 14 : 16, 'A certain man made a great 
supper (deipnon), and bade many.' (See al- 
so verses 17 and 24, and chapter 20: 46.) 

" John 12:2,' There they made him a sup- 
per (deipnon), and Martha served.' 

"John 13: 20 and 21 : 20, the word occurs 
in the same sense. 

" We might further illustrate this meaning 
from, the Septuagint, in such passages as Dan- 
iel 5 : 1, - Belshazzar the king made a great 
feast (deipnon, supper) to a thousand of his 
lords/ but it is unnecessary. 

" Deipnon means a full meal, a banquet, a 
plentiful supper, an ample repast, the princi- 
pal and most abundant meal of the day ; which 
occurred in the evening between midday and 
midnight. Dr. Fuller says that deipnon was 
among the ancients the most social and con- 
vivial of all their repasts, and the word means 
'a banquet, a feast' (page 226). It is also 



MEANING OF THE TERM. 21 

to be observed that the Lord's supper, or 
deipnon, was instituted and first celebrated at 
night. Xot only the meaning of the word 
which was chosen described it, but the very 
hour of its appointment and first observance 
connected the Lord's supper with the even- 
ing — the close of the day. 

" According to the plain, evident, and well- 
established meaning of words, therefore, and 
sustained by circumstances, two things would 
be assigned to the sacramental deipnon: first, 
it must be a full and plenteous meal; and, 
second, it must be eaten in the evening. A 
fragment of bread half an inch square, and 
a sip of wine that would scarcely fill a tea- 
spoon, is not a deipnon, as the Greeks used 
that word; any more than sprinkling a few 
drops of water on a man's head is an im- 
mersion of him. Neither do we eat our sup- 
pers in the morning. It is as great a contra- 
diction in terms and confusion of ideas to 
speak of supping in the morning as to speak 
of plunging a man by pouring water on him. 

" Suppose, then, we were to set ourselves to 
reasoning on the word deipnon as the immer- 



22 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

sionists reason on the word baptisma; we 
might make out a case, and convict the Chris- 
tian world in all ages of disobedience to the 
plain command of Christ. They say that bap- 
tisma means a plain immersion and nothing 
else; we say, And still more certainly does 
deipnon mean an evening repast. If the 
one denotes mode, the other with more 
certainty denotes time. They insist that 
baptisma includes in itself a total cover- 
ing up of the whole body in water; we 
say, with far more reason and confidence, that 
deipnon includes in itself the provision and 
participation of the largest and fullest meal. 
If the one requires water enough to cover a 
man, the other, with greater certainty, requires 
food enough to fill the man and as many as 
are to partake of it. The words chosen in 
both are the words of God, and he knew what 
he meant by them. And if the common 
Greek usage of baptisma was to denote im- 
mersion, and we are to get God's meaning 
in that word from the common Greek usage, 
the common Greek usage of deipnon must al- 



MEANING OF THE TERM. 2$ 

so give us the idea attached to it by the Holy 
Ghost. 

" What, then, has been the universal prac- 
tice of the church with regard to the sacra- 
mental deipnon? Have there been any de- 
nominations of Christians who believed, or 
held it necessary to a right communion, that it 
should be celebrated in the evening, or that 
it should be made a full meal? All parties, 
Baptists with all others, are continually cel- 
ebrating the deipnon of the Savior in the 
morning; and none of them provide for it 
more than a bit of bread and a sip of wine 
for each communicant. We do not find fault 
with this. We believe that it adequately ful- 
fills the meaning and the spirit of the words 
of Jesus on this subject. But arguing as our 
modern immersionists do, we might say, with 
holy indignation, What right have men to 
trample upon and ignore the time selected by 
the Savior in the institution of the sacrament, 
and ingrained into the name given it by the 
spirit of inspiration? What authority have 
they to make a pitiable abortion of a break- 
fast or dinner, of what, according to the plain, 



24 THE LORDS SUPPER. 

common import of God's Word, is to be an 
abundant and plenteous supper? If we can- 
not dispense with the mode in baptism, we 
cannot dispense with the time in its corre- 
sponding sacrament. If we cannot have bap- 
tism without immersion, for the same alleged 
reason we cannot have a supper in the morn- 
ing, or a deipnon for a hundred guests with- 
out a large supply of wine and bread. If time 
and quantity are nothing in the one sacra- 
ment, the name and circumstances of which 
call for it, mode and quantity are nothing 
in the other sacrament — the name and circum- 
stances of which demand it still less. 

" If they (Baptists) will insist that we per- 
vert and violate an ordinance of Christ by de- 
clining to be immersed or to immerse, we take 
the liberty of holding the mirror up to nature 
that their flagrant inconsistency may be seen. 
They have expunged the elements of time and 
quantity from the Lord's supper, and they 
think they have done no violence to the lit- 
eral exposition and the plain meaning of the 
words certainly containing them. And it will 
not answer for them now to turn about and 



MEANING OF THE TERM. 2$ 

condemn and excommunicate us for thinking 
it is nonessential as to how water is applied 
in baptism. Let them ponder first those 
searching words of Jesus, ' Why beholdest 
thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, 
but considerest not the beam that is in thine 
own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the 
beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt 
thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of 
thy brother's eye/ 

" The immersionist attempts to defend the 
peculiarity of his procedure by asserting that 
mode is inseparable from baptisma, and there- 
fore belongs essentially to the ordinance. We 
say that is an argument incriminating him- 
self, and, by proving too much, recoils up- 
on his own head. Time and an abundance 
of provision are as necessarily included in 
deipnon as it is possible for mode to be in 
baptisma; and when he gives us the war- 
rant for his liberty to eject time from the 
Lord's supper, and for his substitution of a 
little fragment of bread and a little sip of 
wine for a full meal, we shall be prepared to 
establish our right to dispense with his fa- 



26 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

vorite mode in the administration of baptism. 
Until he does this, all his philological rea- 
sonings on the word baptisma are completely 
nullified, and in all justice, forever silenced. 
We need no other argument. This in itself 
sufficiently disposes of the whole question. It 
winds up the whole controversy in a nutshell. 
It puts the dispute in a light in- which there 
is no room for philological mystification, and 
which may be easily understood. It concedes 
the whole Baptist assumption, and yet com- 
pletely confounds the inference founded up- 
on it, and leaves the cause of immersionism 
in inextricable embarrassments. It is unan- 
swered and unanswerable." — Seiss' Baptist 
System Examined, pages 277-280. 

Dr. Seiss here clearly establishes that deip- 
non means a full meal and tries to justify the 
effusionists in their substitution of a few drops 
of water for immersion in baptism. He clear- 
ly concedes also that immersion is the pri- 
mary meaning of baptisma. But because, for- 
sooth, the great Christian world has deviated 
in practice from the confessed meaning of 
deipnon, therefore he feels justified in devi- 



MEANING OF THE TERM. 2.J 

ating from the clear and conceded meaning 
of baptisma. " The Christian world," he says, 
— (though he should have excepted the Breth- 
ren), "have substituted a bit of bread and 
a sip of wine for deipnon (which means a 
full meal), therefore he is entitled to sub- 
stitute a few drops of water for baptisma, 
which really means immersion! Absurd! 
Does one deviation from the plain meaning 
of the Sacred Word ever justify another? 
Does not the failure of the Christian world 
to adhere to the plain meaning of deipnon 
also convict him and his people of failure to 
adhere to the plain meaning of baptisma? 
One wrong or failure, or one deviation, nev- 
er can justify another. Instead of both be- 
ing wrong, as proven by Seiss, why not both 
be right? Why not adhere to the conceded 
literal meaning of both baptisma and deipnon 
— baptize by immersion and eat a full meal 
for the Lord's supper? Then we have not 
taken from the Sacred Word (Rev. 22: 19) ; 
we are justified of heaven, and our names 
are recorded in the great volume of life in 
the Holy City. 



CHAPTER THREE. 



Name of Cup and Loaf. 



In order to reach a correct solution as to 
the use and name of the cup and loaf, let 
us repeat a little. The Christian world has 
so long looked upon them as the Lord's sup- 
per that we wish carefully to distinguish be- 
tween the cup and loaf and the real supper. 
Paul said, " Be ye followers of me, as I al- 
so am of Chris t." For Paul to be a follow- 
er of Christ he must have had a Lord's sup- 
per; because, as has already been clearly 
shown, Christ had a supper. " Now I praise 
you, brethren, that ye remember me in all 
things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered 
them unto you." i Cor. n : I, 2. It is here 
evident that Paul speaks of ordinances in the 
plural number; that is, they have been keep- 
ing more than one of them and he commends 
them for it. But what ordinances have they 
been keeping? The ones the Lord gave in 
direct connection with feet-washing, the 



NAME OF CUP AND LOAF. 2$ 

Lord's supper and the ordinance requiring the 
cup and loaf. Thus, you see, Paul was par- 
ticular to deliver to the church only such 
things as he had received from the Lord. 
He bound them to the " all things " he had 
taught them. This is evident from the fact 
that Jesus said to his disciples in the night 
of ordinances, " If ye know these things, hap- 
py are ye if ye do them." John 13: 17. 
What things? The things last done, — feet- 
washing, the supper, the cup and loaf. That 
he designed their continuance is evident from 
the great commission — " teaching them to ob- 
serve all things whatsoever I have command- 
ed you." Matt. 28: 20. 

It is a fact that Jesus sat at a table : " Now 
no man at the table knew for what intent 
he spake," etc. John 13: 18. " Ye cannot 
be partakers of the Lord's table, and the ta- 
ble of devils." 1 Cor. 10: 21. Let us be 
particular, as the particulars of the scriptural 
statements show such dissimilarity to the mod- 
ern custom. There were dishes on the Lord's 
table : " He answered and said unto them, He 
it is that dippeth with me in the dish." Luke 



30 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

14: 20. Thus we have a table with dishes 
upon it containing food of which they ate. 
The Lord's supper was therefore the meal Je- 
sus ate with his disciples, and not the things 
which were given after the meal and for 
which institution we shall find a proper name 
given by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God, 
that ought forever to settle the question of 
the Lord's supper. We find that all the evan- 
gelists who wrote on this subject speak of 
the cup and the loaf as being given after 
supper : " As they were eating, Jesus took 
bread, and blessed it," etc. Matt. 26:26, 27. 
" And he took bread, and gave thanks, and 
brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is 
my body which is given for you; this do in 
remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup 
after supper/' Luke 22: 20. What supper? 
The Jewish passover supper? No, as we will 
abundantly prove at the proper place. What 
supper, then, could it have been? Undoubt- 
edly the Lord's supper. Remember that the 
emblems were given after supper : " In like 
manner also the cup after supper." 1 Cor. 
11: 25, R. V. 



NAME OF CUP AND LOAF. 3 1 

Bible Names for Bible Things. 

We will show from divine record what the 
cup and loaf are called. They are not called 
deipnon, supper. In not one place in all the 
New Testament are the cup and loaf called 
the Lord's supper (knriakon deipnon). It 
was left for man in the apostasy so to des- 
ignate them, after discontinuing the original 
ordinance. The cup and loaf are called koi- 
nonia; that is, the communion, and not Lord's 
supper. And these terms (koinonia and deip- 
non) are not interchangeable. If they are, we 
are wrong. Further, if they are, it has never 
been shown. We venture the statement that it 
never will be shown. 

" The cup of blessing which we bless, is it 
not the communion of the body of Christ?" 
An interrogative-declarative sentence, equiva- 
lent to affirming, " The cup of blessing which 
we bless is the communion of the body of 
Christ." i Cor. 10: 16. 

This is plain, unequivocal, without mystifi- 
cation, and need never be confounded with 
the Lord's supper. " Search the Scriptures ; 



32 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

for in them ye are assured that ye have eternal 
life, and they are they that testify of me." 
The Scriptures never, even by intimation, re- 
fer to the cup and loaf under any other name 
than communion. Let us be satisfied with the 
Word of God. If man refers to it other- 
wise, man is mistaken. Greenfield's Lexicon, 
page 131, and Donegan's Lexicon, page 769, 
as already cited, establish the above conclu- 
sion as to the meaning of the words in con- 
troversy. 

Thus we have koinonia meaning commun- 
ion. Philology and theology exactly agree. 
It only remains for the teaching and prac- 
tice of Christendom to conform to the same 
law of agreement. Thus would primitive 
Christianity be restored in its pristine purity 
and God honored through obedience to his 
Son. 



CHAPTER FOUR. 



General Teaching of the Eleventh Chap- 
ter of First Corinthians. 



This chapter of Holy Writ ought to set- 
tle the question as to what constitutes the 
Lord's supper, as this is the only place where 
the term is used in New Testament Scripture. 
The question is, By the term kuriakon deip- 
non, did Paul mean a full meal, or did he 
refer to the cup and loaf of communion? 
This is certainly the whole question. Remem- 
ber that we proved conclusively that the word 
deipnon means a plenteous repast and that the 
cup and loaf are never designated by the word 
deipnon, but by koinonia. It is not at all like- 
ly that Paul referred to the cup and loaf when 
he used the words kuriakon deipnon, and we 
dismiss the probability that he would use the 
wrong word. He used the word deipnon in 
verse 20, " When ye come together therefore 
into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's 
supper." He used the same word in the next 



34 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

verse, 21, " For in eating every one taketh 
before other his own supper; and one is hun- 
gry and another is drunken/' In this verse 
he uses the term to designate a full meal, — a 
meal that is plenteous enough to satisfy hun- 
ger. Idiomatically it means they were 
filled. Does the word by any known process 
of interpretation, by any method of reasoning, 
mean the cup and loaf, a mere sip and a wafer 
in verse 20 and a full meal, — plenteous repast, 
a meal in which they ate to repletion, — fullness 
in verse 21 ? How utterly unfounded and 
improbable the conclusion ! 

Let us notice : It is a fact that they brought 
provisions there for an ample meal. They ate 
a meal, but they ate it disorderly. It is also a 
fact that Paul called the meal which composed 
those provisions " deipnon/' " idion deipnon" 
" own supper." If all admit — and it would be 
folly to deny — that he used the word " deip- 
non " in verse 21 to mean or express the idea 
of plenteous repast, is it not evident that he 
meant to express the same idea by the use of 
the same word in verse 20 ? Is any other con- 
clusion logical or reasonable? Again, it is a 



FIRST CORINTHIANS ELEVEN. 35 

fact that he uses the same word in verse 25 : 
" After the same manner also he took the cup, 
after supper, saying, This cup is the new 
testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye 
drink it, in remembrance of me/' " M eta to 
deipnesai" " after supper/ 5 or, more strictly, 
" after the supper." This language, as will be 
seen by the connection, refers to the supper 
that we have frequently mentioned, that Jesus 
ate with his disciples. Matt. 26:20; Mark 
14:17, 18; Luke 22:14, 15; John 13:2-4. 

1. Paul uses the word to refer to the supper 
that Jesus ate. 

2. He uses the word when he refers to their 
own supper. 

3. He uses the same word when he says 
" Lord's supper." So no other conclusion is 
reasonable but that by the use of the word in 
verse 20 he had reference to the meal that 
Jesus ate with his disciples to which he refers 
in verse 25, which is the Lord's supper, and 
not the cup and loaf of communion. Any 
other conclusion is far-fetched, illogical and 
unreasonable. 

But it is claimed by some that the expres- 



36 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

sion, " This is not to eat the Lord's supper," 
entirely excludes the meal they brought. Let 
us examine the Scripture carefully : " But in 
giving you this charge I praise you not, that 
you come together not for better, but for 
the worse. For, first of all, when ye come 
together in the church, I hear that divisions 
exist among you, and I partly believe it. For 
there must be also heresies among you that 
they which are approved may be made mani- 
fest among you. When therefore ye assemble 
yourselves together, it is not possible to eat 
the Lord's supper: for in eating each one 
taketh before other his own supper, and one 
is hungry and another is drunken. What, 
have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or 
despise ye the church of God and put them 
to shame that have not? What shall I say 
to you ? Shall I praise you in this ? I praise 
you not. For I received of the Lord that 
which I also delivered unto you, how that the 
Lord Jesus in the night in which he was be- 
trayed took bread: and when he had given 
thanks he brake it and said, Take, eat; this 
is my body which is broken for you. This do 



FIRST CORINTHIANS ELEVEN. 2>7 

in remembrance of me. After the same man- 
ner also he took the cup, after supper, saying, 
This cup is the new testament in my blood; 
this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remem- 
brance of me." (They were putting to shame 
the poor who were not able to add a portion 
to the meal.) Notice, Paul does not say a 
word against their bringing a meal to the 
church. Had that been the trouble he would 
have plainly said so. He was a plain-spoken 
man and never hard to understand. When 
he purposed rebuking he did it in language 
that left no doubt as to his meaning. If he 
had meant that they should not bring a meal 
to the church, Christendom would not have 
been left in doubt upon the matter. 

Why did Paul reprove them about this meal ? 
If it was their own — and so intended, simply a 
common meal — by what right should Paul, or 
anyone else, reprove them for eating one be- 
fore another, etc.? It was the Lord's supper, 
if properly kept, and so he was particular 
about it as he was particular that all other 
ordinances should be properly observed. 

The Corinthians were deflecting it from its 



38 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

true purpose by the way they ate. The rich 
were ignoring the poor — which is not Christ- 
like — and doubtless drinking too much wine — 
not new wine, but fermented, which was even 
worse. Hence it could not be the Lord's sup- 
per, eaten in this unseemly way, but simply 
their own supper, as all the benefits derived 
from it were physical and ended with the one 
who ate. Those who contend that the cup and 
loaf are the Lord's supper get no comfort from 
their position from this chapter, but directly 
the reverse. Hence we again say that the only 
legitimate conclusion is, that the Lord's sup- 
per is a meal, a repast, and not the cup and 
loaf of communion. The cup and the loaf 
are the communion of the body and blood 
of Christ. 



CHAPTER FIVE. 



The Meal Under Consideration Was Not 
The Jewish Passover. 

Around the question as to whether or not 
Jesus ate the regular Jewish passover the night 
of his betrayal the controversy has raged since 
the early centuries of the Christian era. We 
readily concede that if it can be shown that he 
did eat the passover that night, our position on 
the Lord's supper it untenable, or at least be- 
comes much more difficult, as it deprives us of 
the Christly example. Furthermore, it would 
destroy the Lord's supper altogether, as the 
supper must be a meal, as shown, and leaves 
the Christian world groping in darkness and 
uncertainty upon this momentous subject. 
But if, upon the other hand, it can be shown 
that the meal Jesus ate the night of his be- 
trayal, — the evening before his death, — was 
not the Jewish passover, but a special meal for 
a special purpose, the fogs of uncertainty and 
confusion lift and clear away, the light of 



40 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

day breaks over the entire field and we are 
left no longer in doubt. Such we claim is 
the case. There is no confusion when we 
" rightly divide the word of truth/' It was 
not the passover — the Word of God harmon- 
izes and our duty is plain. To prove that the 
meal Jesus ate was not the passover we offer 
the following arguments: 

I. John says it was before the passover: 
" Now before the feast of the passover, when 
Jesus knew that his hour was come that he 
should depart out of this world unto the Fa- 
ther, having loved his own which were in the 
world, he loved them unto the end. And 
supper being ended (or prepared) the devil 
having now put into the heart of Judas Is- 
cariot, Simon's son, to betray him, he riseth 
from (the) supper and laid aside his gar- 
ments, and took a towel and girded himself." 
John 13: 1, 2, 4. 

Remember, John was present and was a per- 
sonal witness, being one of the twelve, and 
his testimony must stand. Gospel harmony 
must also teach that whatever was written by 
others on this point must agree with him, 



NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 41 

or we are led into inextricable confusion. 
John positively asserts that it was before the 
passover. It could not therefore have been 
the passover. 

2. They went out that night from the sup- 
per room: " And when they had sung a 
hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. 
And Jesus saith unto them," etc. Mark 14: 
26. This was expressly against the law of 
the institution of the passover : " And dip a 
bunch of hyssop and sprinkle the transom of 
the door therewith, and both door cheeks : 
and let none of you go out of the house till 
morning." Ex. 12: 22. 

But it is said that the Jews in the time of 
Christ violated this express prohibition. This 
is possible. But Jesus, in partaking of the 
old ordinances of Judaism, would have kept 
them strictly to the letter. The fact that he 
and the disciples went out of the house that 
night is fatal to the claim that it was the pass- 
over that they had eaten. 

3. They thought Judas had gone out to buy 
things for the feast. Another very important 
consideration is that, according to the best au- 



42 THE LORDS SUPPER. 

thorities, the passover came that year on the 
Jewish Sabbath, so the disciples would not 
have thought that Judas " was gone out to 
buy " especially " those things they had need 
of for the feast." 

" Now no man at the table knew for what 
intent he spake unto him. For some of them 
thought, because Judas had the bag, that Je- 
sus had said unto him, Buy those things that 
we have need of against the feast ; or, that he 
should give something to the poor." John 
13 : 28, 29. What feast was in the future, that 
they desired to make preparation for? The 
only answer that can be given, with a proper 
knowledge of time and events is, the feast 
of the passover, which was yet in the future 
about twenty-four hours. Thus it is clear 
that the supper they had just eaten was not 
the passover. 

4. "■ Give something to the poor." Notice 
the last clause of verse 29 quoted in argument 
3, " or give something to the poor." It was 
customary to help the poor buy the paschal 
lamb. The disciples thought that if Judas 
was not going out to buy the things that they 



NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 43 

(themselves) needed for the feast he was go- 
ing out to help the poor buy the lamb that 
they might be ready to eat the passover when 
the proper time arrived. For proof of this 
custom see Farrar's " Life of Christ/' Vol. 2, 
p. 289. 

5. The Jews went not into the judgment 
hall: " Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas 
unto the hall of judgment: and it was early: 
and they themselves went not into the judg- 
ment hall, lest they should be defiled; but 
that they might eat the passover." John 18: 
28. What does John here mean by the pass- 
over? If there were no controversy at all 
on any phase of this question there would 
be one answer to the query, and that the right 
one. It means, of course, the paschal lamb. 
Then is it not clearly evident that the Jewish 
passover had not yet been eaten? 

6. He was buried on the preparation day: 
" And when Joseph had taken the body, he 
wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it 
in his own tomb, which he had hewn out in 
the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the 
door of the sepulcher, and departed. Now 



44 the lord's supper. 

the next day that followed the day of prepar- 
ation, the chief priests and the Pharisees came 
together unto Pilate/' Matt. 26 : 59. 

" And now when the even was come, be- 
cause it was the preparation, that is, the day 
before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, an 
honorable counselor, which also waited for 
the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly 
unto Pilate and craved the body of Jesus. 
And Pilate marveled if he were already dead ; 
and calling unto him the centurion he asked 
him whether he had been any while dead. 
And when he knew it of the centurion, he 
gave the body to Joseph." Mark 15: 42-45. 

This man went unto Pilate and begged the 
body of Jesus ; and he took it down, and laid it 
in a sepulcher that was hewn out of stone, 
wherein man never before was laid. And that 
day was the preparation, and the sabbath 
drew on." Luke 22 : 52-54. 

"And it was the preparation of the pass- 
over, and about the sixth hour; and he saith 
unto the Jews, Behold your King ! " John 
19:14. 

" There laid they Jesus therefore because of 



NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 45 

the Jews' preparation day: for the sepulchre 
was nigh at hand." John 19 : 42. 

Thus the evangelists are a unit that the 
Savior was buried on the day of preparation 
for the Jewish passover. John twice asserts 
it. Hence how evident to an unprejudiced 
mind that he did not celebrate the Jewish 
passover that year. This argument alone 
should be sufficient. But we proceed. 

7. Would have broken the law. Thus we 
have clearly established that the meal that Je- 
sus ate was eaten twenty-four hours before 
the legal time for eating the passover. It be- 
ing eaten twenty-four hours before the legal 
time, would, if it were the passover, be a 
breaking of the passover law — a thing he ex- 
pressly said he would not do : " Think not 
that I am come to destroy the law or the 
prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to 
fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till 
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle 
shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be 
fulfilled." Matt. 5 : 17, 18. 

8. No feet-washing at the passover. It was 
not the custom to wash feet at the passover. 



46 the lord's supper. 

Jesus washed his disciples' feet at the supper 
he ate (see John, thirteenth chapter), there- 
fore it could not have been the passover. For 
proof that they did not wash feet at the pass- 
over, see Farrar's " Life of Christ/' Lange's 
Commentaries. 

9. They reclined at the table. We learn 
from the institution of the passover that they 
did not recline at table : " And thus shall 
ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes 
on your feet, and your staff in your hand; 
and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord's 
passover." Ex. 12:11. "The central cus- 
tom of the feast was the hasty eating of the 
paschal lamb, with unleavened bread and bit- 
ter herbs, in a standing attitude, with loins 
girt and shoes upon the feet, as they had eat- 
en hastily on the night of their deliverance. 
In this way the passover is still yearly eaten 
by the Samaritans at the summit of Gerizim." 
Farrar's " Life of Christ," Vol. 2, p. 290. 
He adds in a footnote : " I was present at 
this interesting celebration on Gerizim on April 
15, 1870. They stood while eating the pass- 
over." Christ reclined while eating his last 
supper. It could not have been the passover. 



NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 47 

10. Some prisoner must be released at the 
passover. There was to be some one released 
at the passover, not after it. Let us appeal 
once more to the Scriptures : " Now at that 
feast the governor was wont to release unto the 
people a prisoner, whom they would." Matt. 
27:15. " Now at the feast he released unto 
them one prisoner whomsoever they desired." 
Mark 15:6. "But Pilate answered them, 
saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King 
of the Jews?" Mark 13:9. "I will there- 
fore chastise him and release him. (For of 
necessity he must release unto them one at the 
feast.)" Luke 23: 16, 17. But you ask, At 
what feast was it that Pilate must release one 
unto them? Let the evangelist John answer 
the question : " But ye have a custom that I 
should release unto you one at the passover. 
Will ye therefore that I release unto you the 
King of the Jews ? " 

This argument alone should settle the ques- 
tion finally. The passover had not yet been 
eaten when Jesus was condemned. Observe 
carefully what this argument develops, — how 



48 the lord's supper. 

fully it contains the Brethren's position on 
this much-disputed question. It shows (a) 
that they would not go into the judgment hall, 
lest they be defiled, but that they might eat the 
passover. (See connection of Scripture given 
above.) That is, Jesus is being tried the next 
day after his last supper, and the Jews refuse 
to go into the judgment hall to the trial be- 
cause they desire to eat the passover. " Then 
led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of 
judgment: and it was early: and they them- 
selves went not into the judgment hall, lest 
they should be defiled; but that they might 
eat the passover." John 18:28. (b) Pilate 
said on the day of Jesus' trial, " Ye have a 
custom that I release unto you one at the pass- 
over" and desired them to call for the release 
of Jesus, (c) He was buried on the day of 
the preparation of the passover. Can evi- 
dence be clearer, more complete, more con- 
clusive than this? If this is not conclusive, 
will some one tell us what would be? Could 
any position by any possibility be more fully 
satisfied? But the resources of the subject 
are almost boundless, and we proceed. 



NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 49 

11. The priests said, "We must not take 
him on a feast day." After two days was 
the feast of the passover and of unleavened 
bread, and the chief priests and the scribes 
sought how they might take him by craft, and 
put him to death. But they said, Not on the 
feast day, lest there be an uproar of the peo- 
ple." Mark 14: 1, 2. If it had been the pass- 
over they ate it would have been the passover 
feast day when he was apprehended. They 
hurried the matter, no doubt, because of the 
approaching feast. 

12. Executed on the day of passover feast. 
They would not have executed him on the day 
of the passover feast. The polity and tra- 
ditions were averse to it. Again we say, they 
hurried the execution, as they hurried the ap- 
prehension, because of the approaching pass- 
over feast. By hastening the matter along 
they were enabled to time his death at about 
the exact time for slaying the paschal lamb, 
thus, though without any thought or inten- 
tion on their part, causing the great antitype 
to take the place of the type which is our next 
argument. 



50 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

13. Type and antitype meet in point of time. 
He must die at the proper legal time of kill- 
ing the paschal lamb to be the antitype in point 
of time. This is essential and convincing to 
his followers in all ages of the church. He 
taketh away the first that he might establish 
the second, and " Christ our passover was 
sacrificed for us." 1 Cor. 5 : 7. He put away 
sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb. 9 : 26. 
The type and the antitype meet, so we con- 
clude that Christ was slain at the same hour 
that the lamb should have been slain. 

14. Not descriptive of the passover. The 
evangelists in all their descriptions of the prep- 
aration for this meal say nothing about killing 
or preparing the paschal lamb. 

15. There is nothing said by any of the 
writers that would indicate that they were 
eating food pertaining to the passover, but 
rather the reverse. 

16. The Jewish passover had never been 
designated by the word deipnon, supper, but 
always by the use of the word pascha, ton 
pascha, the passover. 

17. The day was spent in a scene of busy 



NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 5 1 

work and turmoil unlike the day of the pass- 
over feast: (a) Joseph buys the linen cloth: 
" And he bought fine linen, and took him 
down, and wrapped him in the linen.'' Mark 
15: 46. (6) The women prepare spices, etc.: 
" And the women also which came with him 
from Galilee, followed after and beheld the 
sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And 
they returned and prepared spices and oint- 
ments." Luke 23:55, 56. (c) Simon the 
Cyrenian came home apparently from a day's 
work in the country : " And they compel one 
Simon, a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out 
of the country, the father of Alexander and 
Rufus, to bear the cross." This was not ad- 
missible according to the law : " And the 
fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of 
unleavened bread unto the Lord. Seven days 
ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first 
day ye shall have an holy convocation. Ye 
shall do no servile zvork therein" Lev. 23: 
6, 7. While these prohibitive enactments 
may to a certain extent have been violated by 
the Jews, we have no evidence of it. Thus we 
show that with all the above transactions it is 



52 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

evident that the Lord's supper, as given by 
the evangelists, was before the time to partake 
legally of the Jewish passover. 

18. Did not mix Christian and Jewish ordi- 
nances. Christ did not sit down to the table, 
begin with a Jewish ordinance and end with 
a Christian ordinance. If that had been a 
Jewish feast, it would have Christ beginning 
with the Jewish passover and ending with the 
cup and loaf of communion, thus putting new 
wine into old bottles, — the old bottles of the 
law with the new wine of the Gospel, or a 
New Testament ordinance added to an Old 
Testament institution. 

19. Many eminent scholars and historians, 
ancient and modern, agree that Jesus did not 
eat the passover. In the early ages of the 
church the belief predominated that the last 
supper of the Lord was not the Jewish pass- 
over, but was different from it. It was so 
held by Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Clement of 
Alexandria, Polycrates of Ephesus, Julius 
Africanus, Tertullian, Calmet, Neander, Ide- 
ler, Liicke, Seiffers, De Wette, etc. See Far- 
rar's " Life of Christ," p. 479 ; Calmet's Bible 



NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 53 

Dictionary, article, " Passover ;" Schaff's 
" Church History," vol. 2^ article, " Passover 
Controversy." 

20. Chronology disproves the idea that the 
last supper was the passover. My last reason 
why the meal under consideration is the Lord's 
supper and not the Jewish passover is a chron- 
ological one and is based upon the fact that in 
the year of the Lord's crucifixion the day of 
Pentecost fell on Sunday — the memorable day 
that so many were converted and added to 
the church. We will submit the highest and 
best authorities obtainable to establish our 
position ; and if it is proven it will add one. 
more incontrovertible proof that Christ did not 
eat the Jewish passover at the last supper. 

Fifty days from the day following the pass- 
over came the day of the feast of Pentecost. 
" Pentecost, the fiftieth," because the feast of 
Pentecost was celebrated the fiftieth day after 
the sixteenth of Nisan, which was the second 
day of the feast of the passover. " And ye 
shall count unto you from the morrow after 
the sabbath, from the day that ye brought 
the sheaf of the wave offering ; seven sabbaths 



54 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

shall be complete : even unto the morrow after 
the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty 
days." Lev. 23:15, 16. Thus we count 
from the Sabbath (Jewish time) forty-nine 
days and Sunday, our time, is the fiftieth day. 
So it is a fact that Pentecost fell on the first 
day of the week, our Sunday; counting back, 
then, we find that Christ was crucified on Fri- 
day at the going down of the sun of that day. 
The beginning of the fiftieth would be the legal 
time for the celebration of the Jewish pass- 
over. For additional proof see Schaff-Her- 
zog " Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge," 
vol. 3, p. 1801 ; Smith's Bible Dictionary, pp. 
695, 6, which is too lengthy to be inserted in 
full in a brief work like this. I give only a 
sentence or two : " In the latter case the nat- 
ural conclusion is the meal (Lord's supper) 
was eaten before the passover. The time of 
the festival was calculated from the second 
day of the passover, the sixteenth day of Ni- 
san." These proofs are condensed, but are 
clear and plain. Thus Pentecost was on Sun- 
day, or the first day of the week. He ate the 
supper with his disciples on Thursday night, 



NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 55 

our time, was tried and executed on Friday, 
was in the tomb part of Friday, Friday night, 
Saturday, Saturday night, and part of Sun- 
day morning, — the morning on which he rose 
from the dead. So fifty days after the second 
day of the feast was Sunday, the fiftieth day 
after Nisan sixteenth. All authorities that 
are regarded as reliable agree with this. 
Hence the conclusions are the same. Now let 
us carefully notice. Suppose Jesus to have 
eaten the Jewish passover that year. It is 
established that the eating is begun at the be- 
ginning of night — the beginning of the fif- 
teenth of Nisan, which because of Pentecost 
falling that year on Sunday as I have shown 
(our time) would establish that Nisan fifteenth 
that year fell on the Jewish Sabbath, Sat- 
urday. Remember he ate the meal the be- 
ginning of the fourteenth day, was arrested 
and brought before Pilate in the morning, 
tried, executed and buried during the four- 
teenth. This was Friday according to our 
time, or Pentecost did not fall on Sunday that 
year. 

I have repeated the argument to give it em- 



56 THE LORD S wSUPPER. 

phasis. If this is not true Jesus would have 
lain in the tomb only a part of one night. 
The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that 
Jesus did not eat that supper at the legal time 
of eating the Jewish passover. I cannot see 
how any child of God can believe that Jesus 
ate the passover that year, in the light of the 
facts above presented. 

We are impressed that the Jews did not 
eat the passover that year at all, nor did Jesus, 
as he died, as we have shown, before it could 
have been legally eaten. If this is not conclu- 
sive and convincing, I do not see how a con- 
clusion can be reached on the subject. Nei- 
ther do I see how any one could be convinced 
by evidence. I append below some references 
bearing out the arguments contained in this 
chapter that are worth examination. 

Calmet, article " Passover," " Dictionary 
Holy Bible," vol. 2. 

Clark's " Sermon on the Eucharist," sermon 
33, vol. 3, p. 95, etc. 

Farrar's " Life of Christ — Excursus," 10, 
vol. 2, p. 474, etc. 



NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 5/ 

SchafFs " History of the Christian Church," 
vol. 2, " Paschal Controversy/' 

It is only by careful study of the historical 
setting and a proper understanding of the 
Book of God that we can settle rightly this 
controversy. And now, after establishing the 
great truth of the existence of the Lord's sup- 
per, and having shown finally that it was be- 
fore the passover, and that Jesus died at the 
legal time of eating the paschal lamb, and 
therefore did not eat the passover, we will 
now show that the apostles and early Chris- 
tians observed this meal. 



CHAPTER SIX. 



The Apostles Observed a Feast. 



If there is a Lord's supper in the New Tes- 
tament church, established by the Savior, can 
it be shown that such a meal was ever ob- 
served by the early church? If it can be so 
shown, it will strengthen our position by 
showing apostolic observance. That such 
can be established is clearly evidenced by the 
following : 

" These are spots in your feasts of charity, 
when they feast with you, feeding themselves 
without fear: clouds they are without water, 
carried about of winds; trees whose fruit 
withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked 
up by the roots." Jude 12. 

" And shall receive the reward of unright- 
eousness, as they that count it pleasure to 
riot in the day time. Spots they are and 
blemishes, sporting themselves with their own 
deceivings while they feast with you" 2 
Peter 2 : 13. 



APOSTLES OBSERVED A FEAST. 59 

Paul says, " I must by all means keep this 
feast that cometh in Jerusalem : but I will 
return again unto you if God will." Acts 18 : 
21. 

These love feasts will now engage our at- 
tention. 

Wilson's " Emphatic Diaglott " and the 
Vatican Manuscript speak of the above feasts 
as " Agapce" or " love feasts." We will 
now try to prove that these " agapce " and 
" love feasts " mean the same feasts or repasts. 

We have the term deipnon meaning feast, 
and agape also meaning feast. I believe, 
therefore, we are justified in the conclusion 
that in the scriptural use of the word agape 
in Jude and Peter we have the generic use of 
the term, and that it is used to include both 
the Lord's supper and the cup and loaf of 
communion because they were united and 
formed one whole agape or love feast, as 
shown in Matt. 26 : 26, " As they were eat- 
ing, Jesus took bread/' etc.; that is, the 
bread of communion in direct connection with 
the supper " koinonia/' " communion." 1 
Cor. 10:16 is specific and means the rite or 



60 THE LORD'S SUPPEft. 

ceremony represented by the cup and loaf. 
" Kuriakon deipnon " is specific, meaning 
" Lord's supper/' Agape is generic and rep- 
resents both the meal, or Lord's supper and 
the cup and loaf or communion, though doubt- 
less the term was soon applied to the meal 
only. If this position is sustained, it follows 
without cavil that agapce — love feasts — in Jude 
and Peter included both the meal and the com- 
munion. " After the model of the Jewish 
passover and the first institution of this rite, 
the celebration of the Lord's supper (he means 
the loaf and cup) originally was always 
joined with the general meal, and both to- 
gether formed one whole: and because the 
communion of believers with the Lord, and 
their brotherly communion with each other 
was represented by it, the two together were 
called the supper of the Lord or deipnon ku- 
riakon of the love feast, agape. It was the 
rite of Christian communion in the first church 
at Jerusalem. In Acts 2 : 46 we are most 
probably to understand both together. We 
find both connected in the first Corinthian 
church, and one is inclined to suppose that this 



APOSTLES OBSERVED A FEAST. 6l 

was also the innocent, simple meal of the 
Christians, of which Pliny speaks in his re- 
port to the Emperor Trajan." Neander's 
" History First Three Centuries of the Chris- 
tian Church," p. 208. 

Waddington, quoting Pliny to Trajan, says: 
" When these things were performed it was 
their custom to separate and then come togeth- 
er again to a meal which they ate in common 
without any disorder; but this they had for- 
borne since the publication of my edict by 
which according to your commands, I prohib- 
ited assemblies." 

Remember, this was written in the apostolic 
age, during the first century, when some of 
the apostles were yet living. The Christians 
had a meal in common then. The church was 
largely prevailing over idolatry in the Roman 
empire, so that the temples were being de- 
stroyed, as shown in Pliny's letter from which 
we have quoted the foregoing. 

Again, M. Waddington says, page 46 of the 
work above quoted : " The celebration of the 
eucharist (he means the cup and loaf) with 
meetings which somewhat partook of a hos- 



62 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

pitable or at least a charitable character and 
was called agape, or feast of love. Every 
Christian, according to his circumstances, gave 
to the assembly a portion of bread and wine 
and other things as gifts or oblations to the 
Lord. Of the bread and wine such as was 
required for the administration of the sacra- 
ment was separated from the rest and con- 
secrated by the bishop alone. Its distribu- 
tion was followed by a frugal and serious re- 
past." 

It is here evident that in the earlier days of 
the church the two were joined together and 
formed " one whole " and were characterized 
as " agape'' " love feast," " Lord's supper." 
The title of the cup of blessing (i Cor. 10: 16) 
had been imported into the Greek church. 
The synonym of " the cup of the Lord" (i 
Cor. 10:21) "distinguishes it from the other 
cups that belonged to the agapce. . . . The 
table on which the bread was placed was the 
Lord's table." — Smith's "Dictionary of the 
Bible" p. 488. 

Here the two ordinances were joined to- 
gether. We will now introduce a descrip- 



APOSTLES OBSERVED A FEAST. 63 

tion of the agapce by Tertullian, included in 
Neander's talk on the same subject: 

" We now speak first of the meals of broth- 
erly love, as they were afterwards called 
(agapce) when separated from the supper of 
the Lord. Here all differences of earthly con- 
sideration and rank were laid aside, were to 
disappear in Christ. All were here to be one 
in the Lord, rich and poor, high and low, mas- 
ter and servants, were all to eat at the same 
table with one another. Tertullian paints the 
celebration of such a feast in the following 
manner: Our supper shows its nature by its 
name. It is called agape, which in Greek 
means love. Whatsoever it may cost it is a 
gain to be put to cost in the cause of piety, 
since we delight all the poor by the refresh- 
ment. As the cause of the supper is honora- 
ble, judge ye with what regard to religion all 
besides is conducted in it. It admits of no 
vulgarity; it admits of no indecency; we do 
not lie down to table before a prayer has 
been offered to God; we eat only that which 
hunger requires, we drink only what becomes 
men of sobriety and modesty to drink; we do 



64 the lord's supper. 

not forget, while we are satisfying our wants, 
that God is to be adored by us through the 
night. The conversation is that of men who 
know that God hears them. After the meal 
is over, after we have washed our hands and 
the lights have been brought, each person is 
required to sing something to the praise of 
God for the instruction of us all, just as he 
may be able from Scripture or from his own 
resources. The feast is concluded with 
prayer. 

" These agapce gradually lost their true orig- 
inal meaning which could only be maintained 
in the simple habits of the early churches, and 
they often became nothing but a dead form, 
which was no longer animated by the spirit 
of that brotherly love which removes all dis- 
tinction between man and man, and unites all 
hearts together. Many abuses crept into them 
which gave an opportunity to the evil-minded 
to represent the whole festival in a hateful 
light. As it usually happens in cases of this 
kind, some attributed too much importance 
to the mere form as an ' opus operatum/ a 
mere outward work, and others unjustly con- 



APOSTLES OBSERVED A FEAST. 65 

demned the whole thing, without distinguish- 
ing between the proper use and the abuse ; and 
the errors of both parties arose from their no 
longer understanding the simple, childlike spir- 
it from which this rule has derived its origin. 
Certain rich members of the community gave 
these agapce, and fancied that they had done 
something particularly meritorious. Here, 
where all should be on equal terms, a distinc- 
tion of rank was made, and the clergy, who 
ought to set an example of humility to all, al- 
lowed themselves to be particularly distin- 
guished by undue exercise of the outward 
preference to their order. An unkindly, 
gloomy, ascetic spirit wholly condemned the 
agapce and eagerly caught at all the abuses 
which, ever attended their celebration in any 
place whatever, in order to paint them in ex- 
aggerated colors, and so to render the whole 
thing odious. " — Meander's " Church History,' 
p. 209. 

Here again we see the two joined together 
in one general institution called agapce, I 
next introduce Calmet's Bible Dictionary, vol. 
1, article "Agapce:" "These festivals were 



66 the lord's supper. 

kept in the assembly of the church toward 
evening after prayer and worship were over. 
The faithful ate together in great simplicity 
and union what each had brought, so that rich 
and poor were no way distinguished. After 
a supper thus frugal and modest they partook 
of the sacramental signs of the Lord's body 
and blood and gave each other the kiss of 
peace/' 

How accurately does he thus describe the 
original supper of our Lord! What more 
need we on the argument for the conclusion 
at which we have arrived, that the supper and 
the communion were both included in the aga- 
pe or love feast? Now let us sum up in brief 
so the reader may be readily enabled to grasp 
what has been proven in this chapter. 

i. Christ ate a meal. 

2. The apostolic churches had a meal. 

3. The early churches had such meals, 
" and a gloomy, ascetic spirit condemned 
them." 

4. They were set aside, and the reason 
therefor : " These meals particularly attract- 
ed the jealousy of the heathen and gave occa- 

LoFC. 



APOSTLES OBSERVED A FEAST. 67 

sion to the wildest and most abominable re- 
ports, and this might easily cause their 
abolition." — Neander. 

5. The churches that observe them are 
therefore apostolic. 



CHAPTER SEVEN. 



Perpetuation of the Supper. 



Thus far we have established that there is 
a Lord's supper, and that it is not the cup and 
loaf ; that Jesus ate a special meal with his dis- 
ciples, and that the Christian church in the 
•early ages, before popery and bishops, clothed 
with ecclesiastical power, began to invade the 
fair realms of the church of the Redeemer, 
faithfully and humbly partook of this meal in 
memory of the last supper of the Lord. 

The concluding question, therefore, is, Can 
there be gospel evidence adduced to prove 
that this sacred meal should be perpetuated? 
This proven, our task is done. Does it be- 
long to this dispensation? We answer em- 
phatically that it does. Let us once more go 
to the Book, from which all authority and evi- 
dence pertaining to sacred things should be 
drawn. This supper is recorded in Matthew 
26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 13. 

" And when the hour was come he sat down, 



PERPETUATION OF SUPPER. 69 

and his twelve apostles with him; and he said 
unto them, With desire I have desired to eat 
this passover with you before I suffer; for I 
say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof 
until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God/' 
Luke 22 : 14-16. 

This language assuredly binds this meal 
upon the dispensation reaching to the kingdom 
of God. There are, however, some of our 
fraternal neighbors who teach that it was ful- 
filled in the death of Christ, and that, there- 
fore, it must have been the Jewish passover. 
Let us examine the claim and show its fallacy. 
We have already proven that it was not the 
passover. Again, it cannot mean the death 
of Christ that was alluded to, for practically 
the same language is used concerning the cup 
of communion : " And he took the cup and 
gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide 
it among yourselves. For I say unto you, I 
will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the 
kingdom of God shall come!' Luke 22 : 17, 
18. 

" And he said unto them, This is my blood 
of the new testament which is shed for 



JO THE LORD S SUPPER. 

many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no 
more of the fruit of the vine, until that day 
that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." 
Mark 14: 24, 25. 

Thus it is evident that where the cup of 
communion reaches the supper reaches, where 
the one ends the other ends also ; that is, when 
the kingdom of God comes. Christ taught 
his disciples to pray, " Thy kingdom come." 
This is the everlasting kingdom. For he must 
reign until he shall put down all rule, authority 
and power. Then he will deliver up the king- 
dom to God, who will then be all in all. 

Mark says, " Drink it new in the kingdom 
of God." He did not drink it with them after 
the resurrection. There is no account of it in 
the Word, and we therefore conclude that he 
did not. There was to be such a time, but 
when it was to come is now the important ques- 
tion for solution. Like the ordinances of the 
communion, it is to last from the time of its 
institution by the Savior until " he shall have 
delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Fa- 
ther; when he shall put down all rule and all 
authority and power." 1 Cor. 15:24. 



PERPETUATION OF SUPPER. J I 

Daniel the prophet foresaw the events con- 
cerning the kingdom and reign of Christ which 
would precede the final consummation of his 
mission, the marriage supper of the Lamb, and 
broke forth in this language : " And after this 
I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth 
beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceed- 
ingly ; and it had great iron teeth : it devoured 
and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue 
with the feet of it : and it was diverse from all 
the beasts that were before it ; and it had ten 
horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, 
there came up among them another little horn, 
before whom there were three of the first 
horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, 
in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, 
and * a mouth speaking great things. I be- 
held till the thrones were cast down and the 
Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was 
white as snow, and the hair of his head like 
the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery 7 
flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery 
stream issued and came forth from before 
him : thousand thousands ministered unto him, 
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood be- 



72 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

fore him: the judgment was set, and the 
books were opened." Daniel 7:7-10. What 
is this but the judgment of the great day? 
Again, " I saw in the night visions, and, be- 
hold, one like the Son of man came with 
the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient 
of days, and they brought him near before 
him. And there w r as given him dominion, and 
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, 
and languages should serve him : his dominion 
is an everlasting dominion, which shall not 
pass away, and his kingdom that which shall 
not be destroyed." Daniel 7:13, 14. Who 
was it coming in the clouds of glory but Jesus ? 
Who was the Ancient of days but God to 
whom Jesus is transferring the kingdom ? 

" And she brought forth a man child, who 
was to rule all nations with a rod of iron ; and 
her child was caught up unto God, and to 
his throne." Rev. 12 : 5. 

" And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, 
prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord 
cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to 
execute judgment upon all, and to convince 
all that are ungodly among them of all their 



PERPETUATION OF SUPPER. 73 

ungodly deeds which they have ungodly com- 
mitted, and of all their hard speeches which 
ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 
Jude 14, 15. 

" Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor 
to him : for the marriage of the Lamb is come 
and his wife hath made herself ready. And 
to her was granted that she should be arrayed 
in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine 
linen is the righteousness of saints. And he 
saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which 
are called unto the marriage supper of the 
Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the 
true sayings of God." Rev. 19 : 7-9. 

The holy prophets all prophesied of this 
time, foretelling by the influence of the Holy 
Spirit things to come, the consummation of 
the divine plan. They stood on the mountain 
top with the telescope of prophetic power. 
They faithfully swept the horizon of all ages, 
gathering in even the fragments of time until 
their vision was fixed upon the limitless heav- 
enly world. They prophesied of the ushering 
in of God's kingdom. Jesus reiterates it and 
leaves us something tangible to remain in his 



74 THE LORD S SUPPER. 

church in the ordinances which he gave to his 
disciples and left with them until the great 
work for which they were introduced into the 
church should be fulfilled. They are not mer- 
itorious in or of themselves to produce salva- 
tion, but are to keep the church united and 
are a sign of our faith in and love for Christ 
our Redeemer. They are a test of our loyalty 
to him, an evidence to the world of our fealty 
to his cause and the outward manifestation of 
our discipleship. " By this we know that 
we love the children of God, when we love 
God, and keep his commandments." I John 

John tells the future ages all that human 
mind can grasp, from his place of banishment 
in the closing years of his long and eventful 
life. On that grand morning that lone isle 
of Patmos became the watchtower of the 
church of God ; and John, her son of keenest 
vision, as well as tenderest love, standing on 
its heights, pierced the farthest clouds and be- 
held the glories of the celestial city, the shin- 
ing arches, jasper walls, dazzling foundations, 
and endlessly beautiful vistas of the New 



PERPETUATION OF SUPPER. 75 

Jerusalem. He tells us of the coming of the 
Son of man, of the church militant merging 
into the church triumphant, of the great won- 
der sweeping triumphantly through the gates 
into the everlasting city. The church life in 
its primitive simplicity is beautiful here, more 
beautiful hereafter. 

The night of ordinances is beautiful in their 
significance. 

i. Feet- washing, — emblematic of frequent 
cleansing from the defilements contracted on 
this wilderness journey to the heavenly Ca- 
naan. 

2. The Lord's supper, — looking forward to 
the time when all redeemed by the blood shall 
sit down to the marriage supper of the Lamb, 
with Jesus present once more to instruct and 
serve. 

3. The communion, — pointing us back to 
Gethsemane and Calvary, to the great con- 
flict of all the ages, where was met and van- 
quished the combined hate and malice of the 
opposition of the church of the firstborn. 

Adherence to these ordinances, as obedient 
children to the Father, insures us an entrance 



j6 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

into all the glories of the beautiful life beyond. 
May we not hope to meet with the reader ^n 
that land that is fairer than day, where no 
storm clouds enter to mar the beauty and peace 
of a home on the banks of the river of life ? 

" And God shall wipe away all tears from 
their eyes ; and there shall be no more death, 
neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there 
be any more pain: for the former things are 
passed away." Rev. 21 : 4. 

" The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be 
with you all. Amen." 



FES. 26 1S03 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proce 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnoiogii 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATI 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-211*1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



I Mill I 

014 665 471 A 




